Misinformation or Deliberate Falsehoods?

https://forums.joeuser.com/?forumid=259&aid=130501#1009940
from JoeUser Forums
There is a current thread on the boards about Homosexuality VS. Heterosexuality. WWW Link">Link

This article contains the following inaccurate information;

AB1056 Provides that a student NOT VOCALLY ACKNOWLEDGING a persons sexuality is to be considered intolerant of a persons sexuality, and it will be dealt with like any other infraction of school rules.

Here is a link to the text of the bill; [link="http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?file=ab_1056_bill_20060911_enrolled.html"]WWW Link">Link

If you read the bill text, you will plainly see that there is nothing in there that refers to "vocally acknowledging" a person's sexuality. As a result of that part being missing, it's obvious that the part about this being dealt with like other infractions is also not there.

More misinformation;

SB1437 which demands that history and social studies be re-written to include contributions of homosexual, bisexual and trans-gender people. This will cost the state many millions of dollars to change the books involved, although I fail to see what a persons sexual preferences have to do with contributions made to anything.

There is nothing in the bill that requires books to be re-written It merely states that when adopting materials for use those materials must not be discriminatory towards race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.

Are there textbooks in use now that include information that reflects poorly on people of alternative sexual lifestyles? If so, should those really be the textbooks we're using anyways?

Here is a link to SB 1437; [link="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1437_bill_20060501_amended_sen.html"]WWW Link

I would have responded directly to the author of the post, but I am blacklisted because he doesn't like being confronted with facts that contradict his alleged facts.

If you don't like homosexuals that's your chice, it's obviously not for everyone, but don't try to get people riled up against gay people by scaring them into thinking things that aren't true.
politics
8,324 views 6 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

There is nothing in the bill that requires books to be re-written

As I am not in california, I will not debate your first of the 3 issues that MM posed.  But the second is typical of you.  WHile he may have said 'rewrite', it is clear that ANY FUTURE text books must conform, ergo, the end result is the same.  If not the wording.

I am not participating in his thread as I dont like the premise.  But this is the last you will see on mine as you are as dirty as they come when it comes to rewriting the facts.  You have not changed, and no, you dont surprise me.  You sadden me with your pettiness.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top


WHile he may have said 'rewrite', it is clear that ANY FUTURE text books must conform, ergo, the end result is the same. If not the wording.


He specifically said that changing the textbooks would cost millions of dollars. No textbooks need to be changed, and the end result is not the same. What textbooks contain discriminatory language towards homosexuals? None, so nothing needs changed and there is no reason to want to use history or social studies books that refer to peoples sexual preference. Therefore it's a non-issue.

But this is the last you will see on mine as you are as dirty as they come when it comes to rewriting the facts.


What facts am I re-writing?

You have not changed, and no, you dont surprise me.


Thanks, at least I'm consistently me.

You sadden me with your pettiness.


Yes, I do realize that honesty and truth are petty to you, they aren't to me though.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
you will plainly see that there is nothing in there that refers to "vocally acknowledging" a person's sexuality. As a result of that part being missing, it's obvious that the part about this being dealt with like other infractions is also not there.


i've just read ab-1056 and i see nothing even close to what mm seems to be claiming.

no vocally acknowledging. nothing about infractions.

But this is the last you will see on mine as you are as dirty as they come when it comes to rewriting the facts. You have not changed, and no, you dont surprise me. You sadden me with your pettiness.


decrypted, this means you've too frequently and consistently proven drguy wrong. as to rewriting fact, there is no such thing. fact is fact. in this case, you accurately cited the text of the bill and are factually correct. he simply can't admit it.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
LW, I found your second post to be redundant.     
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
shrugs, lifts leg, and pees on 'em~


incorrigable!   
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
~shrugs, lifts leg, and pees on 'em~


I knew there was a reason I liked you.